Experience, Education and Economy
In Experience and Education John Dewey writes “How does subject-matter function? Is there anything inherent in experience, which tends towards progressive organization of its contents? What results follow when the materials of experience are not progressively organized? A philosophy which proceeds on the basis of rejection, of sheer opposition, will neglect these questions. It will tend to suppose that because the old education was based on ready-made organization, therefore it succeeds to reject the principle of organization in toto, instead of striving to discover what it means and how it is to be attained on the basis of experience.”. Here Dewey asserts that merely rejecting the past and calling it ‘progress’ results in a reaction to what wasn’t working instead of a solution to what a situation calls for based on experience. This passage points to the questions and critical analysis that are missed out on when we move too hastily into rejection in the name of progress.
My first introduction to the world of economics brought shed light on the possible reality that life today is not that substantially different from feudalism when it comes to the concentration of wealth within an upper class based on land ownership. At the time, I became curious as to why and how we got to where we are and eventually assumed that capitalism is a rejection of feudalism, not a critically analysed consideration of societal needs. A few weeks ago, I was reminded of my curiosities around economics in conversation about the possibilities for economic reform after a pandemic. A very intelligent friend sent me the following passage: “Capital’s economic science fictions cannot simply be opposed; they need to be countered by economic science fictions that can exert pressure on capital’s current monopolization of possible realities” from the foreword of Economic Science Fictions by William Davies. What really stuck with me from this conversation was the idea that possible realities can be monopolized.
I associate Dewey’s sentiments with my recent interaction through the shared warning of what is at stake when we move hastily into ‘progress’ based on rejection instead of critical analysis because both use history to inspire critical analysis for future progress.
A critic might argue that instead of concern for future progress, what these two ideas have more specifically in common is a focus on critical analysis, because Dewey does not explicitly mention the future in the highlighted passage and my initial spark of association with the history of economics was the shift from past to present, not future.
Here I will ask, if not for the sake of a better informed future, what is the point in looking to history for what could have been done better or applying critical analysis to present activities? I’m not saying that the past and present only serve us for the future. The focus here is critical analysis and its application to progress, and I may be so bold as to assume that progress is considered inherently oriented towards the future.